In an
action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Giftports,
Inc., doing business as Jomashop, appeals, as limited by its
brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court,
Richmond County (Troia, J.), dated February 22, 2016, as
granted those branches of the plaintiff's motion which
were for an award of interest on a judgment of foreclosure
and sale and for an award of an attorney's fee, and
directed an award of an attorney's fee in the sum of $2,
500, and denied that branch of its cross motion which was to
toll and cancel accrued interest.

ORDERED
that the order is modified, on the law, (1) by deleting the
provision thereof denying that branch of the cross motion of
the defendant Giftports, Inc., doing business as Jomashop,
which was to toll and cancel accrued interest, and
substituting therefor a provision granting that branch of the
cross motion to the extent of tolling and canceling interest
that accrued between March 23, 2010, and November 26, 2014,
and otherwise denying that branch of the cross motion, and
(2) by deleting the provision thereof awarding the plaintiff
an attorney's fee in the sum of $2, 500; as so modified,
the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs to
the defendant Giftports, Inc., doing business as Jomashop,
and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Richmond
County, for a new determination on the issue of the amount of
the attorney's fee to be awarded, following the
submission of a more detailed affirmation of services
rendered, and, if necessary, for a hearing on that issue.

"In
an action of an equitable nature, the recovery of interest is
within the court's discretion. The exercise of that
discretion will be governed by the particular facts in each
case, including any wrongful conduct by either party"
(Prompt Mtge. Providers of N. Am., LLC v Zarour, 148
A.D.3d 849, 851 [internal quotation marks omitted];
see CPL 5001[a]; Dayan v York, 51 A.D.3d
964, 965). Here, the plaintiff failed to adequately explain
its lengthy delay in prosecuting this foreclosure action.
Under the circumstances, the Supreme Court should have
granted that branch of the cross motion of the defendant
Giftports, Inc., doing business as Jomashop, which was to
toll and cancel interest that accrued to the extent of
tolling and canceling interest that accrued between March 23,
2010, the date of the decision of a prior appeal in this
case, in which this Court affirmed the award of summary
judgment to the plaintiff (see Citicorp. Trust Bank, FSB
v Vidaurre,71 A.D.3d 942), and November 26, 2014, the
date of the referee's report (see Dollar Fed. Sav.
& Loan Assn. v Herbert Kallen, Inc.,91 A.D.2d 601;
South Shore Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn. v Shore Club
Holding Corp.,54 A.D.2d 978; see also Danielowich v
PBL Dev.,292 A.D.2d 414, 415).

An
award of an attorney's fee pursuant to a contractual
provision may only be enforced to the extent that the amount
is reasonable and warranted for the services actually
rendered (see People's United Bank v Patio Gardens
III, LLC,143 A.D.3d 689, 691). "In determining
reasonable compensation for an attorney, the court must
consider such factors as the time, effort, and skill
required; the difficulty of the questions presented;
counsel's experience, ability, and reputation; the fee
customarily charged in the locality; and the contingency or
certainty of compensation" (id. at 691; see
Vigo v 501 Second St. Holding Corp.,121 A.D.3d 778,
780). "While a hearing is not required in all
circumstances, the court must possess sufficient information
upon which to make an informed assessment of the reasonable
value of the legal services rendered" (People's
United Bank v Patio Gardens III, LLC, 143 A.D.3d at 691
[internal quotation marks omitted]). "There must be a
sufficient affidavit of services, detailing the hours
reasonably expended... and the prevailing hourly rate for
similar legal work in the community" (SO/Bluestar,
LLC v Canarsie Hotel Corp.,33 A.D.3d 986, 988 [internal
quotation marks omitted]).

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;In this
case, the affirmation of services rendered submitted by the
plaintiff&#39;s counsel did not set forth counsel&#39;s
experience, ability, and reputation, and failed to detail the
prevailing hourly rate for similar legal work in the
community (see People&#39;s United Bank v Patio Gardens
III, LLC, 143 A.D.3d at 691; SO/Bluestar, LLC v
Canarsie Hotel Corp., 33 A.D.3d at 988). Moreover, the
affirmation of services failed to indicate whether the hours
listed were expended by the affirmant, rather than a
predecessor firm, and listed "anticipatory services to
be rendered" amounting to more than half of the hours
purportedly expended. Accordingly, the matter must be
remitted to the Supreme Court, Richmond County, for a new
determination ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.